Saturday, November 29, 2014

Many of these folks are the same idiots that either don't vote or vote to keep people enslaved working at Walmart for unlivable wages so that these folks can pay for their food stamps and housing assistance via taxes. But hey, it gives us bargain shopping at discount prices. What's important, right?

See this article showing that those who voted for regressive Republicans in the last election are getting screwed by the very same people they voted for. Yes it's true that the regressives manipulate said uneducated, ignorant voters with lies and spin. And that said voters are too busy trying to make ends meet to be politically involved, a situation again created by the very same regressives. And yet these people at some point have to take responsibility for keeping informed on the politics and the issues, and recognize who is really on their side and who is lying. If they don't the cycle will be perpetuated indefinitely. Which is of course fine for the regressives representatives and their 1% puppet masters, but not for us.

There
are ontologies without assholons, as I call them. And that don't
colonize everything into their ontologies but leave space-time for
change without an overriding telos. And still incorporate complexity and
mereology but of a different sort. Perhaps
read the 'flat' ontologies of the speculative realists and
object-oriented ontologists? (Latour, Bryant, Morton, DeLanda, Protevi,
Stengers, Badiou etc.) They also seem to avert the BCT, since there is
no lockstep agreement about the field among them, though there are some
very broad parameters of kinship.

At FB Bonnie linked to this essay. Therein we have Latour criticizing the 'reasonable' notion of
creating a broad generalization of the polis and then trying to fit
(pigeonhole) everything into this abstract model. For Socrates the base
was geometry, for McIntosh and 'mainstream'
integralists it's AQALingus. Both stem from this 'false' reason. This
sort of reason misses the democracy of objects Latour and the other
speculative realists and object-oriented ontologists enact. Theirs is a
'flat' ontology that still recognizes complexity and mereology, but of a
different kind. It's also the difference between real and false reason
so much expounded in the IPS thread of that name. All of which has been
explored at length and in depth at that wonderful Ning IPS forum from
which the FB one springs.

Read it here. Some excerpts follow, with follow-up discussion at this IPS thread:

"People thought that when I was talking about framing that I was talking
about words. This is what Frank Luntz keeps saying, 'Words that Work.'
The reason he can do that is that on the right, the think tanks figured
out the frames before he came along. All he had to do was
supply the words for the frames, whereas we have to think out the whole
thing. Moreover, the assumption was that there was no difference between
framing and spin, which is utterly ridiculous. You do framing every
time you talk, every time you think, because frames are what you use in
thinking—they’re neural structures."

"[W]hen you start talking about the communications system that the right
wing has set up, people think, 'Well, we’re Democrats and progressives,
we don’t do that. We don’t set up a real communications system; that
would be underhanded, that would be propaganda.' There’s a difference
between saying what you believe in, getting your ideas out there, and
propaganda to say what you believe. You tell the truth, that’s not
propaganda."

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Continuing from this post, and the ongoing IPS FB thread on the topic, part of the problem
with the epistemic fallacy is actualism. Now Wilber does account for the
non-actual via the timeless, changeless Causal real which subsists the
actual, but then turns around in the
next breath and asserts we can directly access the Causal via a non-dual
meditative state (aka satori), the Absolute side of the equation. Which
is exactly what Bryant is criticizing, that we can directly and
accurately 'know' not just this state, but that this state directly
accesses that Causal realm underlying the actual.

So yes, it's a
fixation on enacting the interior state(s), because this 'consciousness
per se' IS the metaphysical foundationalism of ALL, "for foundationalism
is premised on the possibility of absolute presence." Bryant (and
Morton) have the good sense to carefully read and understand Derrida on
this metaphysics of presence.

I'm eagerly anticipating this
new movie under Ridley Scott's direction set to open Dec. 12. I've been
seeing previews for the last 2 months and it looks to be a cinematic
masterpiece as well as blockbuster. Especially with Christian Bale as
Moses under Scott's direction. The cinematography and CGI look
astounding from the previews. And the chemistry between Bale's Moses and
Joel Edgerton's Ramses looks fiercely intense.

It's also a good metaphor for today's saga of wage slavery, with
Senator Warren leading the masses out of Egypt (poverty) against the
indomitable will of the 1% played by Charles Koch. This IPS thread will
serve as discussion prior to the film's release, as well as commentary
after we've seen it.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

"Here it is necessary to clarify what the epistemic fallacy is and is
not about. A critique of the epistemic fallacy and how it operates in
philosophy does not amount to the claim that epistemology or questions
of the nature of inquiry and knowledge are a fallacy. What the epistemic
fallacy identifies is the fallacy of reducing ontological questions to
epistemological questions, or conflating questions of how we know with
questions of what beings are. In short, the epistemic fallacy occurs
wherever being is reduced to our access to being. Thus, for example,
wherever beings are reduced to our impressions or sensations of being,
wherever being is reduced to our talk about being, wherever being is
reduced to discourses about being, wherever being is reduced to signs
through which being is manifest, the epistemic fallacy has been
committed.

In the FB IPS forum Fractal Organism started a thread on the epistemic fallacy. I responded to his statement that "the world we create is necessarily a world of propaganda, and by extension a world of delusions and illusions" with the following:
"I
disagree that propaganda by extension is delusion and illusion. See my
most recent post in the Lakoff thread on the movie Mockingjay. Like
in the movie [...] propaganda requires an emotional connection to
motivate and inspire people to action, like framing per Lakoff. It isn't
necessarily about creating an illusion but about creating embodied and
emotional connection with ideas.

FO: "ok, agreed, but making something embodied and emotional doesnt necessarily take the illusion out, it just gives it tangibility."

Monday, November 24, 2014

This weekend I saw part I of this ongoing Hunger Games saga. I was reminded of recent posts on progressive framing, that we need more than just the right policies but also need to frame it in such a way that it inspires and motivates people to take action. Which is precisely the main theme of this movie installment. The President of District 13, along with her propagandist-in-chief played by deceased PS Hoffman, must convince Katniss to be the figurehead of the resistance. It needs a strong character to lead and inspire people to join in the fight and Katniss is The One. The entire film is about first convincing her to accept this role, and then learn how to do it well enough to inflame people to action.

I referenced them in the last post and decided to contact them, enclosed below:

Would you please read Lakoff's recent piece
at Huff Post on proper framing? And his referenced book therein? It is
critical for progressives to learn and use framing to reach voters who
will elect those with a progressive agenda. It is not enough to just
have the right policies, since the election showed those policies won on
ballot initiatives yet in the same States Republicans won the seats.
The Republicans, with Frank Luntz's guidance, are expert at framing and
it is the missing key to Democrat campaigns. Stephanie Taylor's recent
op-ed said to be like Senator Warren and Warren does this naturally. And
President Obama learned it well which propelled him to two successful
campaigns. Isn't it time progressives generally learned how to frame
properly their important ideas? It is if they want to win elections and
enact the People's agenda.

Stephanie Taylor, Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) co-founder, recently wrote an op-ed in the The Nation in response to the Democrats election disaster. She uses Senator Warren's style and message as an example for all Democrat campaigns, something us progressives have been trying to hammer home to a seemingly defunct and inept Party. A good sign is that Warren has recently been given a Party leadership role designed specifically for her, strategic policy adviser to the policy and communications committee. Stephanie's complete op-ed is at this PCCC link. It is critical to winning elections and enacting the will of the people, not the 1%. You can give also give your feedback at the link and any other suggestions.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

The regressives are keen on claiming they won because the people spoke in the last election for them and their agenda. See this article on a recent poll about what the people want versus what the regressives want. As we well know, they do not match up. The question still remains on how the people could be fooled so easily to believe they were voting for representatives of their best interests when it is the exact opposite.

I agree with Bill Maher that the American people are fucking stupid. See this story on how the regressives plotted from the very beginning of Obama's Presidency to undermine the economy and do absolutely nothing. And this story has been out for a long, long time. And this is who you elected in the last election? WTF America, wake up.

The Federal Housing Finance Agencyis supposed to help the underwater homeowners that were screwed by Wall Street banks. And it's not because the banks don't want to help us, just themselves. Warren reams the guy over not doing his job. She really needs to run for President.

Sadie is the daughter of that cretin from Duck Dynasty. But I must acknowledge her dancing this season before she gets eliminated, highlighted by the video below from last Monday. She has really come a long way and this was her best dance where she did quite well. That's one of the beauties of dance, how it can bring us together on a more fundamental level by at least temporarily leaving the ideology behind. Good job Sadie.

This would be unbelievable in any other country that values science, but it is obviously not the case in the US Congress. The regressive majority in the House voted to not only put industry lackeys on the Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Board, but to prevent the actual scientific experts on the Board from giving policy advise based on science. But of course the industry lackeys can give advice, presumably on the non-scientific business aspects that are thwarted by the science. To hell with public health and the environment; that's not profitable. Fucking wow.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

As if to put an exclamation point on the last post, see this story. The Senate is investigating 3 Wall Street banks for manipulating commodity prices for their own gain, while the rest of us pay for it with illegally inflated prices. As one example, Goldman Sachs stockpiled aluminum and then withheld if form the market, thereby raising the price of soft drinks in aluminum cans. And JP Morgan has previously paid a $410 million settlement for manipulating electricity prices. And Obama keeps nominating these bastards to run our economy? Really?

Warren reams the White House over its latest nomination of "Antonio Weiss to serve as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Treasury Department." This position oversees Dodd-Frank implementation as well as consumer protection. Which seems contraindicated with Weiss, whose resume includes promoting corporate inversions for global investment banking. I.e., he advises American companies to relocate its corporate HQ outside US borders in order to avert paying taxes here while continuing to profit on selling its products here, as well as our infrastructure and legal loopholes.

Back in this post on the nature of the IPS forum it was compared with a particle collider. See this
recent story on CERN physicists discovering 2 sub-atomic particles that
lay the ground for "revealing what lies beyond the existing 'Standard
Model' of particles and their interactions." And that is how the IPS
collider works too, laying the ground for what lies beyond the
'standard' AQAL model by colliding it with many other models in precise
and exacting experiments. If that's not invaluable in its own right than
I don't know what is.

Monday, November 17, 2014

See this clip of Chris Matthews noting that the Congressional regressives are harder to negotiate with than the Iranians. He's making the point that the regressives are worse fanatics in that regard and he's right. So Todd turns around and instead of addressing with the truth of that statement decides to give the regressives a talking point. Todd is a walking regressive talking point, certainly no journalist. He may as well join Fox News. And it wouldn't surprise me if he does.

In his recent CNN interview, where the interviewers spewed regressive talking points in succession, Senator Sanders provided ample evidence that the regressive Congresspeople have been poisoning the well of working with the President all along. And now it's the President's fault for taking executive action when the regressives have failed to act at all?

The course contains eight different modules,
covering key sustainability science topics, such as: the Anthropocene,
social-ecological systems thinking, planetary boundaries, and resilience
thinking. The MOOC is also designed to be as interactive as possible
through online forum discussions with other students and teaching
assistants, and a chance to ask the top scientists questions through
scheduled video “hangouts.”

Planetary Boundaries is
the third course offered as part of SDSN’s online education initiative,
SDSNedu, which launched in September 2014. All SDSNedu courses are free
and open to the public. For more information about SDSN's educational
initiatives, please write to us at edu@unsdsn.org.

Continuing from this and this post, in this IPS post I responded to one of LP's posts on Nietzsche thusly when he said: "...can
be brought into greater proximity to the Overmen when they are
humorous, mocking, ironic, playful. This is the Festival of the Asses."

Mark me down for the Festival of the Assholons. Let's look at snips from Crowley's Fool card in The Book of Thoth:

"The really important feature of this card is that its number should
be 0. It represents therefore the Negative above the Tree of Life, the
source of all things. It is the Qabalistic Zero. It is the equation of
the Universe, the initial and final balance of the opposites; Air, in
this card, therefore quintessentially means a vacuum."

I remember as a yute taking my new basketball to the playground. I put
my initials on it in capital letters: EB. As we were warming up,
shooting around prior to starting a game this one not so bright kid,
Dave Hutchinson, rebounded my ball and started laughing "EB," he said,
"you can't even spell your name." The rest of us starting laughing at
him for not realizing it was my initials. At that time Green Acres was a
popular show, and Eb was one of its back-hills, ignorant but lovable
characters. Henceforth my nickname at the playground was Eb.

Where I grew up back east creative and insulting name-calling were terms of endearment. These are clips from Gran Torino, an excellent movie demonstrating that behavior. See the movie to put it in context, how he and his barber friend insulted each other. And how he came to love the neighbors next door.

Given this post ambo suggested given my lack of social grace I might be considered an asshOOOlon. Yes, I considered calling myself an asshOOOlon, given I may be so
perceived by those with paper thin skin. That's fine with me, as my skin
is a bit thicker. As Pat Benatar sang: "Fire away."

The "OOOers" are a diverse bunch and have their own opinions of most
things. So you won't find a uniform opinion among them to your question.
They are not like kennilinguists, who take but one authority for all
answers to everything.

As for all that non-local woo woo, Morton might be more inclined but
Bryant not so much. If you search for 'hyperobject' or 'non-local' in
this thread you'll see a lot of that discussion. And my own take,
different still from either of them. And I consider myself an hOOOlon.

See this story, where Senator Warren "will be strategic policy adviser to the Democratic Policy and
Communications Committee, helping to craft the party's policy positions
and priorities." Then see this video, Reich's advice to the Party. It's of course the sort of agenda Warren has been talking about since forever and will be advising the Party to promote in 2016. With that agenda they just might take back Congress and retain the White House.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

In an IPS thread on agape Balder in this post discussed Desmond's kenotic take on it, different than Wilber's. So we might say that kennilingus has kenosis, if by that we take the suffix osis added to ken: -osis: asuffixoccurringinnounsthatdenoteactions,conditions,orstates,especiallydisordersorabnormalstates.

Interesting about Lingam's notion of agape (see Balder's post), when dysfunctional it
becomes Thanatos. It reminded me of the suicidal urge expressed through
ultimate love of all Others, the sacrifice of Christ. And this
discussion of Black Swan.

He nails it. Regressives predicted that Obamacare would increase healthcare costs, insurers would bail out, the number of uninsured would not fall and many more blatant canards. All of which have proved false. But the real reason they hate it is for something they refuse to articulate, perhaps because they are just unaware. (That's being generous.) Chait provides evidence that regressives believe that healthcare is a privilege one must earn, not a right for all. And if you can't afford it it's your own damned lazy fault. It's not the government's job to help people who refuse to help themselves. As if tragic illness is something that's our fault. Or our inability to pay those gargantuan bills therefrom is our fault too. But that's the belief system in a nutshell. Perhaps we didn't worship the one true God properly and deserve his punishment? Yeah, right.

Continuing from the last post, another thing. Recall this
discussion about how I saw my role in integral world. I've taken the
underview that seeks those hidden assumptions in any theory, especially
IT. Which reminds me of Mark Edwards' statement about deconstruction here:

"An integral metastudies should not be seen as a rational project of
integrating every perspective, concept, paradigm, or cultural tradition
within its domain. There must be some things that, by definition, lie
outside of its capacities to accommodate and explain. Consequently, an
integral metastudies needs a decentering postmodernism that it cannot
integrate, that lies outside of its scientific and systematic purview,
which continually challenges it and is critical of its generalizations,
abstractions, and universalizings. The decentering form of
particularizing postmodernism is not something that integral metatheory
can locate or neatly categorize somewhere within its general frameworks.
Decentering postmodernism will always provide a source of critical
insight and substantive opposition to the generalizing goals of an
integral metastudies."

Going back to this
post and the 3 following re: Bryant's comments on Lacan's 'plus-one,'
something has been nagging my subconscious about it. Bryant's description
of the +1 as an empty function that doesn't participate in the
discussion, and has no special knowledge of the topic discussed, yet
functions to focus discussion enough for participants to make a decision
reminds me of a couple of things.

One, the role of facilitator. In a recent work group we had a
professional facilitator that knew nothing about our specialized,
professional topic. The discussion went this way and that, with various
experts waxing eloquently on various tangents. The facilitator had a
syllabus of topics and goals and kept interrupting to bring the focus
back to those tracks and goals by clarifying what someone said and
separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of aforesaid structure by
organizing the content and writing it on the whiteboard. This prevented
endless sidetracking and dominant voices while keeping the discussion
focused and allowing for consensus decisions.

At this link. You get your top 3 picks. After I voted, and Clinton was not in my top 3, the results to date are Warren 42%, Clinton 26%. This tells me that Warren is a viable nominee and we need to get her to run by joining in this effort. Bernie Sanders, by the way, is running about the same as Clinton, so a Warren/Sanders ticket would be unbeatable.

This time from Michael Brenner echoing many of the others in recent posts. You'd think the Dems, who are supposed to be the smart ones, would get the message. Here's a short clip; see the article for the rest of the diagnosis and prognosis.

"At a time when Americans feel more discontent and view their prospects
more darkly than on any occasion since the depths of the Great
Depression, the Democrats have defaulted. They offer no interpretation
that conforms to their bedrock principles; they offer no narrative that
fits the pieces into a comprehensible whole; they offer no vision for
the future. Instead, they have adapted themselves to the Republican
narrative and Republican motifs. They present no robust defense of
government as the people's instrument for meeting communal needs and
wants. Rather, they incline toward the assumption that government and
public programs should be viewed skeptically."

Recall this post where a DC circuit panel ruled to deny Obamacare subsidies on federally-run exchanges. The White House asked for and received that the full DC circuit hear it, which is planned on the docket. But before the DC circuit rules the Supreme Corp decided to hear the case when it wasn't necessary. This is a very bad omen signalling that the regressive Justices plan to confirm the denial of the subsidies, in effect completely killing Obamacare. Very sick news.

See this article. The President said that ISPs should be regulated more like public utilities, providing equal access to content providers. He opposes fast lanes for pay: "Simply put: No service should be stuck in a
'slow lane' because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gate
keeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the
Internet’s growth." It's a good sign, but the FCC is an independent agency so the President cannot make them do anything. The FCC Chairman, Wheeler, meanwhile says he agrees with the President yet we've seen his proposed rules belie that agreement. I.e, the Chairman is a bald-faced liar.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

The following video is from the discussion portion of Real Time last Friday. Sanders is right that the Dems lost because 1) the Republicans hide their real agenda and focused on criticizing Obama and 2) the Democrats let them get away with it by a) not focusing on the real Rep agenda and b) offering a counter to it with their own agenda. It States where there was direct referendum voting on progressives issues like minimum wage, gun control and pot legalization all those issues won. But the Dems spent their time accepting the Rep frame of bad Obama and running away from him rather than on the issues people obviously care about.

on Real Time below. Senator Sanders promotes a Progressive Party, since the two-party system is defunct. They also discuss his hopeful Presidential run in 2016. And given the fact that the service industry is here to stay, raising the minimum wage to a living wage. They really don't need life coaching, the regressive answer, while they cut Medicaid and food programs.

See his recent article here. He lays out the typical Democrat political strategy and why it doesn't work. Why they keep using this playbook when it always fails is insane. What he suggests is exactly what Obama did in his reelection campaign. From the article:

"Such strategies miss the opportunity to present an overriding moral
stand that fits the individual issues, while saying clearly what ideals
Democrats stand for as Democrats. There happens to be such an overriding
ideal that most Democrats authentically believe in. [...] Progressive and conservatives have very different understandings of
democracy. For progressives empathy is at the center of the very idea of
democracy. Democracy is a governing system in which citizens care about
their fellow citizens and work through their government to provide
public resources for all. In short, in a democracy, the private depends
on the public. Elisabeth Warren says it out loud. [Which is why she must be the next President!]

"When people tell you that Keystone is a jobs program, they’re not telling you the truth.
According to the State Department, it will create about 2,000 temporary
construction jobs over a two-year period, and then about fifty permanent
jobs. If you want a jobs program, let’s rebuild our crumbling
infrastructure Invest a trillion dollars into doing that, and create 13
million jobs, not 2,000 jobs. [...] This oil, at least a significant part of this oil is
going to be exported to Asia. In fact, there are at least three
different studies, including one at Cornell, which suggest that because
of the refinery infrastructure, domestic prices will actually go up. So
here we are doing something which will exacerbate climate change, will
create a minimal amount of jobs, will enrich the companies that own the
oil fields and who do the refining, and at the same time, raise gas
prices in the United States. This does not make a lot of sense to me."

From this article on the netarchical strategy showing how the monopoly mindset appropriates the sharing economy. In Rifkin's latest book he talks about how the monopolistic manipulators have
appropriated the sharing economy, Facebook being a prime example. Just
so we consciously acknowledge it, by us participating in Facebook we are
complicit in willingly feeding this monopoly, likely in contradiction
to our deeper values because it's 'convenient.' The following supports Rifkin's observations:

"Facebook is the textbook example. Although it was never distinguished by
smart design or ease of use, Facebook moved aggressively to capture a
monopolistic share of the social media market. Then came the ads, the
interference, the invasions of privacy, manipulation of users’ news
feeds for the corporation’s own purposes – not to mention invasions of
privacy and the sale of personal data to third parties.

Continuing from this post, from the first part of the American Humanist Association Manifesto. See the link for the rest. Sounds pretty spiritual to me:

"Humanism
is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other
supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead
ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of
humanity. The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by
compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well
and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through
the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals,
however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and
understandings advance."

Thursday, November 6, 2014

I subscribe to dictionary.com's word of the day and today it is pusillanimous. I do not think it is coincidence, given the recent election in which the Democrats lost yet again due to this highly apt description of their typical campaign approach. The only reason the Dems picked up seats in 2012 was because the President did not approach his campaign like this, instead defending his policy successes and framing it in appropriate moral terms. The Dems without Obama as anchor for that sort of messaging are pitiful.

This song is hot on the west coast swing dance circuit. I originally liked it just for dancing but I've given it some listen outside that and am finding other things of aesthetic value. The video starts out pretty boring but give it a minute and it gets interesting.

See this article on a summary of the final IPCC climate change report. The story has links to the full report and the summary for policymakers. The following are the 10 bullet point highlights. See the article for more detail. And you can bet your bottom dollar the regressives in control of Congress will not believe any of these obvious facts, let alone take any action on them.

1. We humans really, truly are responsible for climate change.
2. Climate change is already happening.
3. … and it is going to get far worse.
4. Much of recent warming has been in the ocean.
5. The ocean is also becoming more acidic.

See this article, which analyzes close races in States that have implemented new voter suppression laws. In the cited examples the margin of victory for the regressive was lower than the number of people disenfranchised by the laws, which would have turned the results the other way. Mission accomplished regressives; your voter suppression policy worked just like you knew it would.

It is one for a progressive like me. And frustrating at the general idiocy of the populace. It's idiocy on the part of regressives since even they were included in the polling data that showed the Republicans in Congress had approval ratings in the single digits. That figure had to include some of the regressive base to get that low. Plus said regressives were suffering directly due to the Republican obstruction on issues like jobs and the economy. They'd have to be stupid not to know such obvious facts. But there intelligence (lack thereof) is a given the GOP banked on.

By a Federal Court in this article. We'll see if it holds up on appeal, which it no doubt will be. The ruling was based on the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, in that we cannot establish one religion over others. The American
Humanist Association defines humanism as "an ethical and life-affirming
philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces." I
say Alleluia, I now belong to a religion.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

"You
are a spiritual progressive if you endorse the New Bottom Line: A New
Bottom Line is one that judges the efficiency, rationality, and
productivity of our institutions (education, healthcare, legal, etc.),
government (and its policies), corporations and even our personal
behavior based not on the old bottom line of whether they maximize money
and power, but instead assessing them on the extent that they maximize
love and caring, kindness and generosity, empathy and compassion, social
and economic justice, peace and nonviolence, and environmental
sustainability, as well as encourage us to transcend a narrow
utilitarian approach to nature and other human beings. You don’t have to
believe in God, deny science, or be part of a religion to be a
spiritual progressive."

This
link lists some of the people involved with the NSP. Of note is Rep.
Keith Ellison, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. A
brief look at their budget proposal will provide ample evidence that
they partake of the Covenant.

Monday, November 3, 2014

Sung to the tune of the Scarecrow's Wizard of Oz song. Bill Maher is right that if Democrats only had the courage of their convictions and ran on Obama's accomplishments, including the highly successful Obamacare, they'd likely retain the Senate and gain seats in the House. But no, the cowards are running from those accomplishments like they're ashamed of them. Same story, different election.

"Progressive apologists and the PC Muslim intelligentsia tend to respond
to critiques with nasty words like bigotry, racism and Islamophobia. They like to point out that the West is reaping what it sowed among the Muslims after decades of colonialism. [...] The notion that Islam had a gentler side when the West showed up is totally inaccurate. As I documented in my book
about Napoleon’s scientists in Egypt, when the French arrived in Egypt
in 1800—the first large-scale interaction between the west and Islam in
modern history—they were appalled at the treatment of women. [...] As in 1800, so today for women in most Islamic
countries, where honor killing and abuse and hatred of female sexuality
still rules—and not just among the jihadists. RIP to Reyhaneh Jabbari,
hanged by the Iranian government last weekend at 26. For stabbing her
rapist."

"I am writing to you today as a woman who was born and raised in Islam. I
saw your discussion with Bill Maher and Sam Harris, and I must say you
did me a great disservice that day. Your heart was in the right place [but...] what you really did though, perhaps inadvertently, was silence a conversation that never gets started.[...] Why are Muslims being ‘preserved’ in some time capsule of centuries gone
by? Why is it okay that we continue to live in a world where our women
are compared to candy waiting to be consumed? Why is it okay for women
of the rest of the world to fight for freedom and equality while we are
told to cover our shameful bodies?"

Bill Maher responds to the petition to remove him as commencement speaker due to his recent dust up with Ben Affleck on Islam. Maher is right that this liberal bastion must stand up to support free speech. Apparently the school is going to but Maher has a message for those students opposed to him.

See their ads below. And no, they aren't just speaking in metaphors, since that is far above their regressive mindset. They are directly speaking to the violent, gun-toting element in their party with such rhetoric and imagery, knowing full well it sets them off. Despicable.

by Tikkun's Network of Spiritual Progressives. Recent comments have been about how this is not a political or
economic forum but about 'spirituality.' Agreed. However economics and
politics are transformed when we bring a spiritual perspective to those
arenas. And spirituality in a broader sense is about how we manifest
spiritual principles in the daily bread of, well, daily bread: how we
get enough bread to eat, how we share our bread with our neighbors, how
we provide it if they can't afford it, etc. Recall that bread is a key
ingredient in Holy Communion, how we share in the *body* of the Divine,
and how we nourish our physical bodies in preparation for cultivating
our more ephemeral bodies.

It is in that Spirit that I offer the ingredients of the Spiritual Covenant:

1. We will create a society and economic system that promotes rather
than undermines loving and caring relationships and families. We affirm
the deep yearning of most people on this planet to be recognized as
fundamentally valuable not for what they do or how much money, power or
fame they accumulate, but for who they are as embodiments of the sacred
energy of the universe, a yearning to contribute to the common good, to
have work that has higher meaning than to accumulate money or power, and
to live in peace and mutual respect with their neighbors and all people
on the planet, connected through a bond of caring for each other's
well-being.

2. We will take personal responsibility for personal ethical behavior.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Goes beyond the original Enlightenment, offering a critique of individualism and a more self-aware, socially embedded model of autonomy. It brings in Kegan around 4:00 talking about the expansion of empathy. Around 9:00 ethical reason is required to prevent instrumental reason from ruling the day. Plus plenty more packed into this short video.

Want it or not, this exactly what you'll get ladies if the regressives take over the Senate. We need you to vote and vote in masses by this Tuesday or your rights are going out the window. Regressives want you barefoot, pregnant and a hot meal ready when they get home from being the breadwinner. Is that what you want?.

He's been filming his show the last week in Austin. This clip is about just how regressive TX is. Austin is supposed to be the progressive bastion of the State, but my experience living there for 18 months was that anyone claiming to be progressive was more likely an anarchist. That is, they hated the regressive agenda but were unwilling to get involved to do anything about it. Just drop outs from the political system that wanted to be left alone to live their alternative lifestyles peacefully. That's not being a progressive by any stretch, just a lazy, self-centered slacker.With the majority of the State being Stone Age regressive, and those claiming any inkling of progressivism unlikely to get off their ass to do anything about it, TX is not likely to change. Ever.